Liberals on the attack of recreational marijuana.

dagwood45431

dagwood45431

Well-Known Member
tampee said:
The gun lobby profited very good from Obama we had record gun sales yet he never actually did anything but threaten gun control. Oil both sides profit. Big pharma the same.

Read between the lines sure Obama looked anti gun yet he was the best gun salesman in the history of the USA while not doing a damn thing....
Click to expand...
What Buck said (several times).
 
Last edited:
thenotsoesoteric

thenotsoesoteric

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
Shooting someone for hurting your feelings is immoral and wrong no matter what society you belong to. Right to life does not pertain to society but to anyone standing on the land.

The law society once could not advertise on television. If the law society voted that the top 25% earners in that society should pay for all lawyers advertisement costs according to their need....that would be an example of voting for theft.
Click to expand...
Actually killing someone was not moral or immoral until humans decided it was, animals don't seem to live by the moral code of humans... I wonder why? Plus it wasn't just one human or deity that made the decision of morality in regards to ending another human's life, it was a series of collected peoples, aka *societies* that decided that killing people is not kosher.

We as humans inch forward towards being more and more social and involved with each others lives. More and more humans will create a world in which the majority feels safe and comfortable. That day may never come but humans progress toward socialism for a reason and it is not that they are mind washed or some jazz, it is simply because everyone believes their lively hood is just as important as the next person's. If you want to be an asshole and try to stop the flow of time, good luck but it is wasted effort. History shows that humans are progressive, with or without a democratic liberal agenda.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
thenotsoesoteric said:
Actually killing someone was not moral or immoral until humans decided it was, animals don't seem to live by the moral code of humans... I wonder why? Plus it wasn't just one human or deity that made the decision of morality in regards to ending another human's life, it was a series of collected peoples, aka *societies* that decided that killing people is not kosher.

We as humans inch forward towards being more and more social and involved with each others lives. More and more humans will create a world in which the majority feels safe and comfortable. That day may never come but humans progress toward socialism for a reason and it is not that they are mind washed or some jazz, it is simply because everyone believes their lively hood is just as important as the next person's. If you want to be an asshole and try to stop the flow of time, good luck but it is wasted effort. History shows that humans are progressive, with or without a democratic liberal agenda.
Click to expand...
Are you a dog owner or ever observed animals in the wild? It's pretty rare for animals to kill their own in competition for territory, food or a mate. I'm sure you can find some exception, like some spider species where the female eats the male after copulating but that's the point. Species survival is diminished if competing leads to death before reproduction. Even male lions will just let the vanquished run away though the fight can be fatal. Bison and rams have specific moves in the ritual of competition for leadership that are designed to test strength but avoid harm. Advantage there is that old bulls take up the rear when the herd is moving. They either defend the position or become the meal so that the calves and cows are left alone. The care taken to prevent injury during intra-species or intra-pack competition could be entirely instinctive but evolution would favor this kind of behavior. Human morality may be just another expression of this instinct to avoid killing a competitor within the tribe..

The slaughter humans commit on each other much less how we let people starve to death for economic reasons speaks against the idea that we've evolved much. That morality thing is conveniently ignored every day. But I won't say you are wrong, just that people are a few missed meals from descending into barbarism. Could be we are getting better at feeding the population rather than getting all goody goody..

I don't know about that other stuff about history showing humans as being progressive. I'd like to think so.
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Are you a dog owner or ever observed animals in the wild? It's pretty rare for animals to kill their own in competition for territory, food or a mate. I'm sure you can find some exception, like some spider species where the female eats the male after copulating but that's the point. Species survival is diminished if competing leads to death before reproduction. Even male lions will just let the vanquished run away though the fight can be fatal. Bison and rams have specific moves in the ritual of competition for leadership that are designed to test strength but avoid harm. Advantage there is that old bulls take up the rear when the herd is moving. They either defend the position or become the meal so that the calves and cows are left alone. The care taken to prevent injury during intra-species or intra-pack competition could be entirely instinctive but evolution would favor this kind of behavior. Human morality may be just another expression of this instinct to avoid killing a competitor within the tribe..

The slaughter humans commit on each other much less how we let people starve to death for economic reasons speaks against the idea that we've evolved much. That morality thing is conveniently ignored every day. But I won't say you are wrong, just that people are a few missed meals from descending into barbarism. Could be we are getting better at feeding the population rather than getting all goody goody..

I don't know about that other stuff about history showing humans as being progressive. I'd like to think so.
Click to expand...

People are evil.
 
tampee

tampee

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Are you a dog owner or ever observed animals in the wild? It's pretty rare for animals to kill their own in competition for territory, food or a mate. I'm sure you can find some exception, like some spider species where the female eats the male after copulating but that's the point.
Click to expand...
OMG are you serious? Chimpanzees our closet species they have wars one group will attack and kill as many of the other group over territory and food even cannibalize the dead. Many wolves are killed trying to become the alpha and they also fight other packs for territory. Male deer fight to death in many cases for pussy. Lions fight and kill each other over territory, food and pussy. Bees even a queen will go into another queens hive and try to take over or die trying.

Listen more to Darwin, it's survival of the fittest you know very little about animal nature.

adult bass will eat baby bass. Don't get me started I can name off half the animal species.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
PCXV said:
They don't exist precisely because of the inherent flaws of capitalism and the limited scope of capitalism as an economic system. Are there many capitalists that don't acknowledge any of that and how would they deal with common goods like water, air, lands, roads, police, firefighters, public spaces, healthcare, etc.? Is it literally just anarchy and let it all go to shit?
Click to expand...
It doesn't exist because we print new "capital" whenever we want for whatever we want. Then we argue the importance and impact of our printing, sure; such as debt ceilings and moody ratings. Been doing it for about a century. So what you see failing around you just isn't Capitalism factually. When you pay corn and wheat farmers to destroy food to prop up the price at home, not Capitalism.

water, air, lands, roads ect..........taxes of course. But since you don't print capital and must now actually be responsible for it, taxes and their mission statements are actually taken seriously.

What is the purpose of the tobacco tax vs where that tax actually goes? Same for the rest.
The reality is simply this: more "money" is needed to accomplish your goals. If the burden of paying for services atm were put on the taxpayer as services were rendered in real time, instead of adding it to the future bill, the tax payer would pay 100%.
 
Last edited:
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
thenotsoesoteric said:
Actually killing someone was not moral or immoral until humans decided it was, animals don't seem to live by the moral code of humans... I wonder why? Plus it wasn't just one human or deity that made the decision of morality in regards to ending another human's life, it was a series of collected peoples, aka *societies* that decided that killing people is not kosher.

We as humans inch forward towards being more and more social and involved with each others lives. More and more humans will create a world in which the majority feels safe and comfortable. That day may never come but humans progress toward socialism for a reason and it is not that they are mind washed or some jazz, it is simply because everyone believes their lively hood is just as important as the next person's. If you want to be an asshole and try to stop the flow of time, good luck but it is wasted effort. History shows that humans are progressive, with or without a democratic liberal agenda.
Click to expand...
Wonder why? Well Magna Carta was a starting point for us. Humans are social, no doubt. Like wolves, not bees. You present the moral dilemma of theft for morality. Robin Hood wasn't fighting Capitalism and neither are you.

History shows us that People are more Progressive when left alone to associate as they wish in a free market. It's rope vs. ladder. Free market capitalism is a sturdy ladder that you may choose to climb, Socialism is a rope you hold on to while others pull you up.

Equality of Opportunity vs Equality of Outcome.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
tampee said:
OMG are you serious? Chimpanzees our closet species they have wars one group will attack and kill as many of the other group over territory and food even cannibalize the dead. Many wolves are killed trying to become the alpha and they also fight other packs for territory. Male deer fight to death in many cases for pussy. Lions fight and kill each other over territory, food and pussy. Bees even a queen will go into another queens hive and try to take over or die trying.

Listen more to Darwin, it's survival of the fittest you know very little about animal nature.

adult bass will eat baby bass. Don't get me started I can name off half the animal species.
Click to expand...
Chimps attack other tribes, rarely do they engage in lethal combat within the tribe. People are tribal too. From evolutionary perspective it makes sense.

I was completely ready for some idiot to start naming animals that eat their young. I mean, ameobas do it too so there. However there are plenty of examples where this is not the case.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
tampee said:

Hillary wouldn't have gone after recreational marijuana. :dunce:
Click to expand...
Yeah, liberals. They hate mj so much they want to strike it off the controlled substances list. Note: not reschedule but remove from the list. The only restrictions would be shipping for sale across state lines. I presume this is to give states more control over their own regulations of MJ.

@tampee can blame this bill on Hillama too. He'd be wrong but that's nothing new.

https://trofire.com/2017/03/21/tulsi-gabbard-proposes-bill-decriminalize-marijuana/

Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard proposed a bill in late February that, if passed, would decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, releasing the Department of Justices’ hold on the drug and the states that have legalized it.

Controversial progressive Tulsi Gabbard has proposed several bold bills in recent months, the most recent of which is this bill, which she proposed in a bipartisan move with Congressman Scott Taylor of Virgnina.

Co-signing H.R. 1227 “The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act,” Gabbard and Republican Taylor indicate that the removal of taboo and harsh penalties on marijuana consumption and production is no longer a strictly liberal platform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top